Gabrielle Schang

June 5, 1975

Berkeley Barb

May 30-June 5, 1975

Volume 21, Issue 20

Gloria Steinem, founder and editor of Ms. Magazine and president of the Ms. Corporation, has an association spanning ten years with the CIA which she has misrepresented and covered up. 

To some people, particularly feminists, the relationship seemed obvious, if nebulous and difficult to verify. Others will probably remain incredulous until Time magazine finally acknowledges it. And then there will be people who don’t perceive the implications of such a liaison and still more who will simply shrug it off. 

A group of women tied-in with the origins of the modern women’s liberation movement and concerned about its future, who call themselves Redstockings, have been able to piece together enough documentation to convincingly expose and describe the Ms Steinem/CIA connection. 

Moreover, the Redstockings have closely examined the financial backing and contents of Ms magazine and have arrived at the conclusion that the ideology put forth by Ms has been positively harmful to the women’s movement. 

In a sixteen-page press release distributed on May 9 at the (MORE) Journalism Convention in New York City, the Redstockings identify themselves as the initiators of such concepts as “consciousness-raising” and the “Miss America Protest,” during the 1960s. 

These were some of the first women to speak out publicly about their own abortions. Despite criticism from conventional quarters, they urged women to take control of their own bodies, to get to know themselves and ignore the dictatorial status quo. 

The Redstockings also assert that they contributed, with relative anonymity, such slogans to the women’s liberation movement as “Sisterhood is powerful” and “The personal is political.” The coining of phrases like these launched the mass movement, in fact. 

They are concerned because Ms seems to be the voice of women’s liberation, when in reality it has become a substitution for the movement itself. 

The Redstockings women point to a typical CIA-intelligence technique they see operating here, the systematic creation and/or support for a “parallel” movement of organization which provides an alternative to real radicalism. They attempt to show how this subtle, yet mammoth manipulation of women by clandestine elements of the corporate structure transpired. 

The first revelations of Gloria Steinem’s relationship to the CIA appeared in the New York Times in 1967, in an article (CIA Subsidized Festival Trips) stating that Steinem had a part in launching a CIA front group which was called the Independent Research Service. 

Just prior to this exposure, Ramparts magazine had disclosed that the organization was CIA-funded. The purpose of the Independent Research Service seems to have been to subvert communist-minded youths, on an international basis. 

The supposedly “Independent” Research Service was in fact totally dependent on the CIA. It is believed to have been formed in response to the Communist World Youth Festivals, occurring throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s. 

These festivals were held in Communist countries until 1959, when the festival for that year was scheduled to take place in Vienna, neutral territory during the Cold War. 

The State Department did its best to discourage American youth from attending. Some did go, though, and in the meantime, the CIA covertly arranged for the Independent Research Service to organize an anti-communist delegation to attend and disrupt the festivals. 

In 1967, Ramparts exposed the intricate laundering and funneling process by which the Independent Research Service obtained money from the CIA. 

The funds passed through five different foundations (the Borden Trust, the Price Fund, the Beacon Fund, the Edsel Fund and the Kentfield Fund) on its way to the Independent Research Service, as well as to the National Students Association and other groups. 

The final channeling was accomplished through the well-known Boston law firm of Hale and Dorr. This same law firm produced Joseph Welch as attorney for the Army in its confrontation with Joseph McCarthy and, more recently, James St. Clair as Nixon’s chief counsel during the Watergate scandal.

Mystery Book 

No one claims to know why Gloria Steinem was chosen to “found” and direct this group, but two early organizers of the Independent Research Service stated in a New Republic article of May 11, 1959, that, “Most of the sponsors have had considerable experience in domestic and international youth and student affairs.” What in Steinem’s past prepared her for this sort of work? 

The Thousand Indias

It is a matter of public record that Gloria M. Steinem graduated from Smith College and then received the Chester Bowles Asian Fellowship to the Universities of New Delhi and Calcutta, India, in 1956-58. All the Redstockings could glean of her activities in India is the alleged publication of a book in 1957, called The Thousand Indias. 

Although the recent edition of Who’s Who in America lists the title of the book, all attempts by Redstockings to find it in past or current listings of the Cumulative Book Index of the New York Public Library, Books in Print and the Library of Congress were unsuccessful. The very existence of Steinem’s book cannot be determined, let alone its contents or the identity of the publisher. 

According to the recent Redstockings press release, in a February 21, 1967, interview in the New York Times, Steinem was described as a “full-time Independent Research Service employee in Cambridge, Mass., from 1959 until after the Helsinki Youth Festival in 1962.” 

Under media pressure, Steinem could not disavow her CIA association but she gave a distorted view of her activities at the festivals. Steinem claims all the group did at the two festivals was establish a newspaper, news bureau, cultural exhibits and jazz clubs. 

The group’s most important work, she said, was convincing youths from Asia, Africa and Latin America that there were some Americans who understood and cared about their situation. Steinem emphasized, “I was never asked to report on other Americans assess foreign nationals I had met.” 

The Redstockings charge that this statement is an alarming lie. In a “Report on the Vienna Youth Festival,” printed with Steinem’s name on it as Director of the Independent Research Service, there are 13 pages devoted exclusively to biographies, political affiliations and even some superficial analyses of persons from all countries participating in the festival. 

Youths were monitored in much the same way at the 1962 World Youth Festival in Helsinki. In addition to the news and cultural events put on by the Independent Research Service, the Helsinki Festival was marked by four nights of “spontaneous” rioting against the festival, during which 40 people were arrested. It was reported by Newsweek, in August 1962 that “Pravda, of course, blamed the disturbances on well-financed CIA and FBI agents …” 

Secret Agent 

This is Gloria Steinem’s background from the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. She functioned as a secret representative of the American government abroad. At least she was representing certain American interests and her activities in the Independent Research Service involved her inextricably with the U.S. domestic political intelligence network. 

Another fact, exhumed by the Redstockings, is the group’s publication of a pamphlet in 1959 called “A Review of Negro Segregation in the United States.” Steinem’s name is listed on the inside cover, this time as Co-Director of the Independent Research Service. 

The pamphlet focuses on the supposed advances made by Black people in the U.S. For example, “… beyond the noisy clamor of those who would obstruct justice and fair play, no alert observer can be unaware of the concerted effort to rule our segregation from every aspect of American life.” 

The reason some discrimination still does occur, according to the research group, is because, “it is also self-perpetuating, in that the rejected group, through continued deprivation, is hardened in the very shortcomings, real or imaginary, that are given as the reasons for discrimination in the first place.” 

In other words, the oppression of Blacks continues, not because of White ruling class interests, but because Black people actually have become inferior. 

The Redstocking analysis equates this denial of Black oppression with Ms magazine’s rationalization to explain the prolonged subjugation of women. Both Blacks and women have supposedly become apathetic and deficient. 

By 1967, the Independent Research Service was declared “largely inactive” by the New York Times. Steinem, however, was still a Director in September 1967 when Ramparts broke another story. This time they disclosed that the CIA had plans of their own for another World Youth Festival to be held in Sofia, Bulgaria. A scandal involving some confidential letters implicating the CIA, which found their way into print before the festival had the effect of curtailing the CIA’s plans for Sofia. 

It was during the following year, 1969-70, that Gloria Steinem first began publicly identifying herself with the women’s movement. Around this same time, Redstockings researchers noted, there was a change in the biographical information listed about Steinem in Who’s Who. Reportedly, Who’s Who sends data sheets to their subjects, requesting them to furnish the details. 

The 1968-69 edition was the first issue ever mentioning Steinem and at the time she was listed as: “Director, educational foundation, Independent Research Service, Cambridge, Mass., NYC, 1959-62, now member Board of Directors, Washington.”

By the 1970 edition of Who’s Who, this entry was shortened to “Director, educational foundation… 1959-60.” No mention of her position in Washington on the Board of Directors appears and she abbreviated her term of employment with the Independent Research Service to one year. The censored version appears in each successive edition of Who’s Who. 

There does seem to be an attempt, on Steinem’s part, to mislead Ms. readers and conceal parts of her past. For instance, her bio-blurb in the June, 1973, Ms. is even vaguer: “Gloria Steinem has been a freelance writer all her professional life… Ms. magazine is her first full-time, salaried job.”

Clay Felkner

Then there is Gloria Steinem’s mysteriously swift rise to national prominence so soon after the 1967 exposures. It is a common complaint among ex-CIA agents that past involvement with the Agency often impedes their ability to find other forms of employment. This was not the case for Steinem. Again, according to the Redstockings analysis: “Her career skyrocketed a year after the 1967 exposures. Much of the credit for this must go to Clay Felkner, publisher of New York magazine. Recently in the news for his acquisition of the Village Voice, Felkner immediately fired its two remaining founders from their jobs as publisher and editor. 

“Felkner was Steinem’s editor at Esquire where her first freelance pieces were published. He hired her as contributing editor to New York magazine in 1968 and booked publicity spots for her on radio and TV talk shows. Felkner put up the money for the preview issue of Ms. in January 1972, large part of which appeared as a supplement to the 1971 year-end issue of New York magazine. 

“In effect, it was Felkner who made Steinem famous by giving her a platform from which to establish her women’s liberation credentials. These facts are all part of the public record. What has not been widely known up to this time are the earlier political roots of the Steinem/Felkner collaboration. Felkner was with Steinem at the Helsinki Youth Festival, editing the English language newspaper, put out by the CIA-financed delegation.” 

In addition to Steinem’s initial boost from Clay Felkner, the Redstockings were able to determine two other major sources of funds for the then fledgling Ms. magazine.

Katharine Graham

One resource was Katharine Graham, owner and publisher of the Washington Post and Newsweek. She bought $20,000 worth of stock before the first issue of Ms. was ever published. According to perfect Ms. “ideology,” Graham was recently featured on the magazine’s cover, depicted by the headline as “The Most Powerful Woman in America.” (10/74) 

It should be noted in conjunction to this fact, that Newsweek became the most enthusiastic mass circulating magazine promoting the Independent Research Service and later Gloria Steinem as an individual. (See early article of 5/10/65 and cover story of 8/16/71) 

Warner Communications, Inc

The second major money source for Ms. was Warner Communications, Inc. They purchased $1 million worth of Ms. stock after the preview issue appeared. Warner’s allegedly put up nearly all the money and only took 25% of the actual stock holdings. 

Even the Ms. editors admitted that this was a trifle odd: “We are especially impressed that they took the unusual position of becoming a major investor, but minority stockholder; thus providing all the money without demanding the decision vote in return.” (Ms. Reader, p. 226) 

Warner Communications is a mammoth operation, now owning Warner Brothers movies and records besides having large holdings in cable TV, publishing, building maintenance and construction, parking lots and other companies. 

What was their vested interest in women’s liberation which inspired them to make such an unlikely business deal with Ms.? Well, Warner is also the owner of National Periodical Publications, which publishes the Wonder Woman comic books. 

Warner bought the Ms. stock in May 1972. In July 1972, the first regular issue of Ms. appeared on the stands, featuring a cover story on Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman as a feminist heroine, no less. 

The truth is that Wonder Woman was an army intelligence officer, working “for America, the last citadel of democracy, and equal rights for women.” 

The Ms. story also announced that Wonder Woman comics, which had been on the wane since the 1940’s, would be reborn in 1973 with a woman editor. 

Next January’s issue of Ms. told readers that the magazine would soon publish a book on Wonder Woman: “It is the first Ms. book. (In fact, we hadn’t planned to do one so soon; it just grew out of reader’s queries about how to find these comics …”). 

Elitism 

This exemplifies the fraudulent relationship Ms. has with its readers. It seems obvious, once the facts of financing are known, that commercial interests and politics are coinciding in the Ms. empire. 

The 1973 version of Wonder Woman was to be more pacifistic, in adherence to the general line pushed by Ms. In both her old and new model, Wonder Woman’s guiding incentive is “patriotism”—a stance protective of American ruling class interests. 

The promotion of this comic strip heroine is also an indication of the anti-people attitude of liberal feminists who glorify mythical “models,” while they ignore or actually denigrate the real achievements of down-to-earth women. 

The Redstockings investigators point out that this practice, “leads to an individualist line that denies the need for a mass movement, and implies that when women don’t make it, it’s their own fault.” 

The elitist line is actually one of Ms’ biggest selling points in attracting advertisers. In order to get ads, Ms has sold out the ordinary woman. 

From a Ms ad in the New York Times of March 19, 1974: “… a standard market survey show the Ms audience of 1,400,000 as having the best educations, living in higher income households, hold more managerial/professional jobs than any other women’s magazine readers, and 54% of them are between 18 and 34.”

The ad policies of Ms are an equally important indicator of the magazine’s financial and political backing, especially in view of the frequently stated Ms claims of extreme selectivity regarding which ads they will accept. This stance makes any ad they choose amount to an endorsement. 

Blatantly sexist ads are most often rejected, along with ads for cosmetic and fashion products. However, Ms seems to have no moral problem accepting public relations and job recruitment ads for large corporations. 

ITT is one of the most regular advertisers in Ms, along with non-product ads from Ortho pharmaceuticals, Exxon Oil, Chemical Bank, Bell Telephone, Singer Aerospace, Shearson-Hamill stockbrokers, Gulf and Western Oil and Merrill-Lynch stockbrokers. 

In their special “Human Development” section each month, Ms runs a series of advertisements for careers in companies like these. 

A letter in September 1973, from Amy Swerdlow of “Women Strike for Peace” questioned what the recruiting of women for ITT had in common with human development. “Let’s have a Ms story on all ITT activities around the world. Then let the reader decide what talented women will find at ITT headquarters,” she submitted. 

Ms editors replied that in the light of all the unemployed women on welfare, they could not be too selective about job ads. As if welfare mothers are all headed toward ITT careers. 

There is much controversy over whether Ms magazine is a commercial or political enterprise. Elements of both seem to exist, as ingredients of the Ms ideological package. 

Recently, in a television appearance, Pat Carbine, now publisher of Ms and formerly editor of McCalls in 1971 when the management named Gloria Steinem “Woman of the Year,” declared that the women’s movement was currently in “Phase Two.” Radicals were necessary for getting things started, she conceded, but the moderates were now in control. 

The Redstockings women feel, “To the extent that this is true it represents the decision of the American establishment—the people in a position to choose who gets access to the press and airwaves, who gets hired to the token women’s jobs, who gets funding for their projects.” 

According to the data researched by the Redstockings, Ms owes its existence to the highest ranks of corporate America. “Phase Two” of the women’s movement, as described by Pat Carbine and exemplified in Ms magazine, seeks to cover up the historic connection between feminism and radicalism. 

In order to avoid the latter, it must distort the former beyond all recognition. Why is it that Ms. published no articles on forced childbearing and its economic function in society, for example, but does tell you how to bring up your kids with its “Stories for Free Children?” 

“Why is more space devoted to ‘etiquette for humans’ and ‘Populist Mechanics’ than to a root analysis of women’s unpaid and/or exploited labor which, as Susan B. Anthony reminded us, has kept society’s wheels turning for centuries”? 

What is the political function of Ms popular image as the magazine of the liberated woman? The very reason for the resurgence of the modern women’s liberation movement, after all, was the realization that emancipation was a myth, that women were not liberated.” 

The Redstockings say that they realize what raising these issues will do with the women’s movement. They feel strongly that the time has come to necessarily draw some lines, as long as there appear to be two divergent forces at work in the name of the women’s liberation movement. 

It cannot be overlooked that women really need a revolution in their lives and it should not be forgotten that it is the CIA’s job to prevent revolutions. 

The Redstockings think it is time to revive the radical ideas and leadership which marked the growth of the modern women’s liberation movement. All the trappings of the radical upsurge remain, but the content and the style have been watered down. 

The data published in the Redstockings press release will soon appear as part of a 160-page theoretical journal called Feminist Revolution. In it, these women who term themselves activists and originators of the women’s liberation movement will analyze the movement’s successes and errors and propose a renewed offensive. 

Meanwhile, the Ms empire proliferates with information and resources gathered in the name of women’s liberation. This process of information collecting is especially dangerous when put together with the fact that Gloria Steinem and cronies like Felkner have a traceable history in intelligence gathering for the U.S. government. What does Ms do with all the data it has collected over the course of years, pertaining to the lives of many sincere radicals and women innocent of the Steinem/CIA connection? 

Approached from an ideological perspective, it may not seem to matter whether Steinem has kept up her association with the CIA while she is editor of Ms magazine and President of the Ms corporation. Both the CIA and Ms can be viewed as beholden to the same power elite, whether they are working separately or apart. 

Intelligence 

The Redstockings assert that on another level it is crucial that this question be cleared up: “A great deal of information flows into the Ms. offices constantly. The Gazette, a regular feature of news of the women’s movement, request that readers send in stories about their own and other women’s activities. 

“Incidents have come to our attention of women who were asked to write overviews for Ms on various aspects of the women’s movement. These articles were submitted but were drastically cut or never published—although lots of issue space was filled up with reprints from books already having a mass distribution. Ms has the names of individuals and groups mentioned in this data-rich material. The rest of us don’t, with the result that we are left isolated and in the dark.”

Another Ms-related group now under scrutiny, called the Women’s Action Alliance was founded by Steinem in 1971. Its office is located in the same building as Ms. 

According to Redstockings research, despite its name, the WAA is not involved in action. They simply concentrate on intelligence gathering: “Although it described itself in a 1974 mailing as ‘impoverished,’ it had already received a $20,000 grant from the Rockefeller Family Fund for the establishment of a ‘national clearinghouse information and referral service’ on the women’s movement. 

Contacts to be used for the project, according to the Foundation Grants Index for that year, included ‘access to key women leaders, information files assembled by outside sources and a close working relationship with the magazine Ms.’ 

Since that time there have been many more grants for the ‘impoverished’ WAA, from: 

Carnegie Corporation $51,000

Sachem Fund $23,000

Carol Buttenweiser (Loeb) Foundation $5,000

Arca Foundation $12,000

Chase Manhattan Bank Foundation (Rockefeller) $5,000

As the Redstockings exposé points out, it is essential that people with access to this kind and this much information be trustworthy. This information gathered should be used, of course, to further the objectives of the women’s movement. 

Gloria Steinem’s history of information gathering for the CIA and her apparent expertise in this area of domestic intelligence would seem to disqualify her from her current role as the walking logo of the women’s movement. 

The fact that she has never disavowed her connection to the CIA, although she has misrepresented her past actions as an Agency employee, imply that she is still covering up and therefore she has not earned the trust her position requires. 

Steinem, with her vehicle, Ms magazine, has undertaken the job of rewriting her story of the women’s movement. Ms magazine represents the movement now, as if nothing else had existed before it. When real feminist pioneers cannot be ignored, Ms has a way of undercutting their accomplishments. 

The Redstocking report points to a bizarre statement by the Ms editors to introduce an interview with Simone de Beauvoir. Ms stated that the author of “The Second Sex,” whose monumental exposure of White male supremacy laid the groundwork for the modern, organized movement, was now about “to join the movement at last.” This issue appeared in July 1972, with the headline, “New Feminist Simone de Beauvoir.” 

Also published by Ms is something called “A Guide to Consciousness-Raising.” Kathie Sarachild, a Redstocking who says she thought of the idea, was never consulted or mentioned and her definition of their term was altered in the process. The Ms people now present themselves as consciousness-raising experts to their considerable audience. It is easy to see how they can pull off such a sham, from their financial standpoint. 

It is less simple to know what can be done about the co-optation of the authentic women’s movement which began in radical and militant fashion. Attacks from corporate America marked the emergence of a strong mass movement. Most frequently, it was declared that such militancy was alienating women, turning them off. Despite opposition, a mass movement was underway. 

Since direct attacks on the growing nexus of radicalized women were not effective, another plan was master-minded by “experts.” 

This is how and when Gloria Steinem and Ms fit into the picture. In the words of the Redstockings (a name that synthesized two words, Bluestockings, the insulting name for the early nineteenth century feminists, with red, the symbolic color of revolution): 

“An alternative to radical feminism now exists, and Ms is its house organ. In the past few years, we’ve had a chance to feel the effects of that situation. Researching this subject gave us a glimpse into the behind-the-scenes interest groups which have been responsible for those ill effects. These interest groups must be brought into the full light of day if the authentic women’s liberation movement is to emerge from its current eclipse.”

Do not forget that Gloria Steinem dated Henry Kissinger at one time and think about this: “There is still the assumption that a woman is not a complete human being by herself. We have to consider the ways in which we are man junkies.” ~ Gloria Steinem, New York Times, August 11, 1974.

plus-circle Add Review

comment

Reviews